Working with Your Staff to Improve Customer Relations & Prepare Staff for ePlan Review Technology Tom Phillips, Building Official, Salem, OR & Tim Anger, Document Mgmt Supervisor, Osceola County, FL Webinar for the FIATECH Jurisdictions Committee, Tom Phillips, Salem, OR, Chairman & Robert Wible, FIATECH March 9, 2010

Working with Your Staff  FIATECH Jurisdictions Committee – Welcome & introduction - Tom Phillips, Salem, OR, Chair  Successful Approaches – –City of Salem, OR - Working with Staff to Improve Customer / Stakeholder Relations –Osceola County, FL – Working with Staff to prepare them for ePlan technology Next Committee Webinar – Intro to the ICC Replicable Building Guideline

Accountability & Predictability  SALEM, OREGON’S EXPERIENCE IN BUILDING TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST  Tom Phillips, City of Salem, Oregon

Inefficient permitting process hinders economic growth Permitting delays increase costs Delays reduces returns on investments Investors may seek other opportunities Increased cost and delayed returns on investment are built into rents paid by all tenants Discouragement of new construction leads to tighter real estate market

Competition between jurisdictions for new development dollars Improved permit processes that are efficient and predictable can be a cost effective tool in addition to or in lieu of other inducements such as preferential tax rates or regulatory relief.

Efficient permit processes can permanently increase local government revenues Temporary acceleration of property tax collections. Result in a permanent increase in government tax revenues, with a permanently changed system.

Statesman Journal February 24, 2008 Editorial: Developers vital in Salem core’s renaissance “Dealing with the city is easier, attracting more investment.” “This kind of local commitment speaks well for Salem, “…It’s good to be able to attract outsider’s money by persuading them of this areas strengths”.

Statesman Journal “However, attracting local investments still would be a hard sell if Salem’s city staff and processes remained as rigid as they used to be”. Dealing with city hall has become far easier and more pleasant in the past few years. That has encouraged local developers to set aside past grudges and commit to multi-year projects”. “…Salem is changing. For the better”.

Government: “Here to help…” Professionalism: “Close enough…” Flexibility: “One size fits all” Risk-taking: “Worst case scenario” Policies & Procedures: “Tablets of Stone” Equality: “If we do it for you…”

“Be proactive….not reactive”  Create a culture of trust  Improve the organizational structure  Streamline your processes  Promote an appropriate regulatory environment  Create processes that fits the majority

Building Relationships  Building & Safety Staff  Other Divisions and Departments  Stakeholders  Advisory Group  Citizens and neighborhood groups

Services that Serve  Customer “approved” processes  Build flexibility into your processes  Predictable turn-times  Customized permit services  Money-back guarantee  Project Coordinator Program

Transparent Budget  Accountability for each program  Develop revenue & expenditure “silos”  Move towards “no subsidies”  Data driven decisions…  Be willing to share with “whosoever”

Establishing Methods of Accountability  Performance measures  Benchmarking  Decision-making model  Flexible policies  Problem-identifier/Problem-solvers

“Making a Better Wheel…”  “Drilling down…”  Refining policies and procedures.  Lean Six Sigma  Removing redundancies and “extra stupid” processes.

 An FIATECH Presentation Preparations for successful integration ePlan Review Tim Anger Supervisor of Document Management Building Office, Osceola County Growth Management Division (w) (f)

Question? org Osceola County Growth Management Division “With Osceola County being so large and the development moving to the south, how do we effectively provide services without being a hindrance to the developer, contractor, or even the homeowner?”

Answer! And more questions  We knew that the answer was ePlan Review  However it brought even more questions… –How are other jurisdictions handling this issue? –What formats are they accepting? –What about seals and signatures? –What is the stance of the Boards? –What are the hardware requirements? –Will we still need the paper?  But no one was truly leading the way ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Determination  Complement existing permitting system  Wanted a web-based system for document / plan submissions  Reduce the required number of plan submissions from thirteen (or more!) to zero  Increase reviewer accountability –Tracking of all: Review activities Workflow responses Task completion times

ePlan Review Agent I. T. Growth Mgmt. org Osceola County Growth Management Division

Planning Phase  Business process and workflow documentation for Plan Review  Identified hardware requirements –Dual monitors –Upgrades to computers  Determined a core team for testing and training –Growth Management –I. T.

CHALLENGES  Indentify ePlan usage –Narrowed the scope of the initial implementation  Streamline the process for County-wide use –Planning / Zoning –Development Review –Public Works –Infrastructure Projects  Education and Empowerment –Employees –Customers org Osceola County Growth Management Division

Requirements “““We didn’t want to reinvent the wheel, we just wanted to add a little tread so that it could run faster!” add a little tread so that it could run faster!”  Complement existing permitting system  Electronic submissions  Increased communications  Increase reviewer accountability  Decrease review times  Eliminate paper  Ease of use org Osceola County Growth Management Division

Linear Review  Multiple sets of plans for reviewers  Lengthy review times  Waiting of others to complete tasks  Paper shuffling from one to another  Old style of “Doing Business” Intake Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 4

Concurrent Review  Web-enabled content  Single set of plans  Simultaneous review  Instant collaboration  Open communication  Applicant participates  Twenty-First Century style of “Doing Business” Intake Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 4 Reviewer 5

Biggest Issues  Some of the issues that we had to overcome –Electronic signature –Tangibility –Monitor Envy –Fear  Employee quotes –“I am an engineer, I review on paper!” –“I like holding the paper. It just seems more real.” –“My monitor is not big enough.” –“Where is the seal and signature?” Osceola County Growth Management Division

Expedited Work  Commercial and Residential increased productivity  Greater accountability with review staff  Business not limited to “normal” hours –Allowed plans to be submitted 24 / 7 / Days 4 Days < 1 Day Commercial Projects Residential Projects

Benefits  Significant contractor savings –Reduced paper plans –Elimination of permit runner –Saving of hundreds to thousands of dollars per project  Enhanced contractor communications  Digitally submitted revision  Approved plans downloaded once fees are paid org Osceola County Growth Management Division

Press Release  Embassy Suites (300 rooms, meeting center)  Paperless submittal, review and issuance  Return/Value on Investment (ROI/VOI) –Eliminated printing of over 700 pages (100 lbs) –Review time = Weeks  4 days Simultaneous vs. linear –Electronic Stamping = 1-2 days  ½ day org Osceola County Growth Management Division

 An FIATECH Presentation Tim Anger Supervisor of Document Management Building Office, Osceola County Growth Management Division (w) (f)

QUESTIONS

FIATECH Jurisdictions Committee  Membership open to jurisdictions all sizes with fee based on population ($200-$800)  Monthly webinars/conference calls on topics of immediate concern to local and state building and land use/zoning departments  For registration form and more information visit:  Next Jurisdiction Committee Webinar – Mid- April, 2010 on “Introducing the new ICC Replicable Building Guideline”